ReviewArchives of osteoporosis2024
Similarities and differences between European guidelines for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis.
Review in Archives of osteoporosis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- MRONJ Risk Related to Dental Implants in Osteoporosis Treated With Denosumab: A Systematic Review.Oral diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy and safety of odanacatib, abaloparatide, denosumab, teriparatide, and bisphosphonates for male osteoporosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- A bibliometric analysis of acupuncture applied to primary osteoporosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Mechanisms underlying the waning of osteoanabolic therapy effects in osteoporosis.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2026Review
- Low alkaline phosphatase in adults: implications for the diagnosis of hypophosphatasia during evaluation for osteoporosis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Similarities and Differences Between Three North American Treatment Guidelines for the Management of Osteoporosis.Current osteoporosis reports · 2026Review
- [Metabolic bone disorders: what the internist must not overlook].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Bone-seeking nanomaterials for rebalancing bone remodeling in osteoporosis.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026Review
- Male incidence rates outpacing females: results from a nationwide analysis on acetabular fractures in Germany.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of bone mineral density testing in the national health screening program on osteoporosis-related medical visits and fractures among women.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- A novel circulating osteoimmunological signature for diagnosis: integrating CXCL2, FYN, galectin-3, and STING in postmenopausal osteoporosis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of an integrated hospital-community care pathway for fragility fractures' secondary prevention: the PROMOTER-II study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025Article
- Nandrolone Decanoate for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Cureus · 2025Review
- Adequacy of pharmacological prescription in patients at very high risk of fracture within the FLS in Spain: analysis of the REFRA FLS-SEIOMM Registry.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Observational
- Barriers and solutions for global access to osteoporosis management: a Position Paper from the International Osteoporosis Foundation.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Review
- Article
- German DVO risk score identified more patients requiring treatment compared to FRAX.Endocrine connections · 2025Article
- Network Pharmacology Analysis and Biological Validation Systemically Identified the Active Ingredients and Molecular Targets of Kudzu Root on Osteoporosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- A bibliometric analysis of the current state and future directions of osteoporosis pharmacological treatment.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Impacts of Prior Anti-Osteoporosis Treatments on Sequential Denosumab Responses in BMD Changes Among Postmenopausal Osteoporosis Women in East China: Real-World Data Analysis.Clinical interventions in aging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a review of 10 national guidelines from five EU countries to identify similarities or differences in recommendations for the management of patients with osteoporosis. We found general alignment of key recommendations; however, there are notable differences, largely attributed to country-specific approaches to risk assessment and reimbursement conditions.
introductionThe classification of fracture risk is critical for informing treatment decisions for post-menopausal osteoporosis. The aim of this review was to summarise 10 national guidelines from five European countries, with a focus on identifying similarities or differences in recommendations for the management of patients with osteoporosis.
methodsWe summarised the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Disease-International Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines and reviewed guidelines from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.
resultsThe approach to risk assessment differed across the guidelines. In France, and Spain, risk assessment was based on DXA scans and presence of prior fractures, whereas UK, German and Italian guidelines recommended use of a validated risk tool. These differences led to distinct definitions of very high and high-risk patients. Guidelines aligned in recommending antiresorptive and anabolic agents as pharmacologic options for the management of osteoporosis, with sequential treatment recommended. There was agreement that patients at high or very high risk of fracture or with severe osteoporosis should receive anabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive drugs. Variations were identified in recommendations for follow up of patients on anti-osteoporosis therapies. Reimbursement conditions in each country were a key difference identified.
conclusionsCriteria for risk assessment of fractures differ across European guidelines which may impact treatment and access to anabolic agents. Harmonisation across EU guidelines may help identify patients eligible for treatment and impact treatment uptake. However, country-specific reimbursement and prescribing processes may present a challenge to achieving a consistent approach across Europe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.